get_about_meWhat the person has told Job Spotter about their work. Facts from their CV, notes they asked Job Spotter to keep, their preferences and the reasons they gave for hiding jobs, so they can check or delete any of it. A ready-to-read summary is in say.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by listing what is included and by pointing at the `say` field for a ready-to-read summary, but "so they can check or delete any of it" ambiguously suggests a delete capability the annotations deny — it is not a hard contradiction (deletion would happen elsewhere) but it does muddy the read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences and a short fragment, front-loaded with the resource and its contents. The closing clause about deleting is the only piece that does not clearly earn its place, since it hints at behavior the tool does not have.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description does the work of hinting at the return shape by naming the `say` summary field and enumerating the data categories. Nothing about inputs is missing (there are none), though pagination or the full set of returned fields is unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on non-existent inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource and enumerates its contents (CV facts, kept notes, preferences, hide reasons), which tells an agent what data comes back. It never uses an explicit retrieval verb and overlaps conceptually with siblings like get_profile, get_preferences and note_about_me, but the aggregation scope is distinguishable from any single one of them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"so they can check or delete any of it" implies the use case (reviewing what Job Spotter has stored about the person), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to, and no routing to the many siblings that return adjacent data (get_profile, get_preferences, get_my_account). Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.